Peter,
I've now read the article by Helen Cushman that you send as an example of research that adopts an attitude that is not patronizing. It is interesting and indeed moving research, but I don't see that it solves the problems that we have been talking about.
Cushman set out to show that the people who were subjects of her ethnography did not suffer from false-consciousness, and in fact were in the possession of "critical consciousness."
She documented people learning "institutional language" in order to try to obtain needed resources, such as housing and welfare, and learning how to "manipulate" the public service agencies. They refused to accept the values of landlords and others in positions of power. They practiced resistance, subterfuge, and merely wore a mask of compliance. They were able "to assess the usefulness of their strategies and also to assess the larger social and political context that confounded their attempts to get up and out of the ghetto."
But it seems equally evident that their "counter-hegemonic ideologies" were not enough for their circumstances to change in any significant way. Cushman notes that "collective action and sweeping social change do not necessarily result from critical awareness." She herself recommends that the work of critical researchers (she focuses on critical pedagogues) should not be dismantled but redirected. In other words, we are still left with the question of the best relationship between researcher and participant if real change is going to be the result.
And that brings us to questions about the practice of Cushman's own research. First, it seems that her role was merely to document, not to try to change. This is not an example of critical or emancipatory research. One wonders, in fact, whether the situation of the people she studied has not been made worse by the publication of her findings.
Second, her methods of analysis seem precisely to have been chosen to enable her to get "a sense of the whole," as I have been putting it. She describes her use of critical discourse analysis in the following terms: "Critical discourse analysis worked like a camera lens that moved smoothly from a tight focus on a particular linguistic choice, to an intermediate focus on the social context, to a wider focus on the larger political arena in which the events occurred."
So, while her conclusions may not be patronizing, I don't see that her work provides an illustration of how to do research that is 'on behalf' of people in difficult circumstances, rather than merely 'about' those people.
Martin
On Jul 19, 2012, at 6:24 AM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote:
> Once again, though, all of the sources are theorists and etic (outside) researchers. Recall Luria's inability to understand Uzbekistanian logic, which made perfect sense to the people studied and judged as "backward" from the outside researcher's perspective.
>
> Peter Smagorinsky
> Distinguished Research Professor of English Education
> Department of Language and Literacy Education
> The University of Georgia
> 309 Aderhold Hall
> Athens, GA 30602
>
> Advisor, Journal of Language and Literacy Education
> Follow JoLLE on twitter @Jolle_uga
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu] On Behalf Of Larry Purss
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2012 12:26 AM
> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
> Subject: Re: [xmca] Understanding is no method but rather a form of communication
>
> Peter, Catherine
> Language is a constant confusion. I was using the term "folk" in the manner of Jerome Bruner or D. Hutto who are exploring the "common sense" taken for granted psychological explanations and reasons that we use in our daily exchanges with each other.
>
> I'm sending a google book excerpt from D. Hutto's book on forming folk psychological narratives.
> http://books.google.ca/books?id=pqcYHD677jIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=d.+Hutto+Folk&source=bl&ots=aufMgjSJvQ&sig=Yp0sBvio8DQkeiDPFbV-lL-1RB8&hl=en&sa=X&ei=oYcHUOGwLYLVqAGXmsnIBA&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=d.%20Hutto%20Folk&f=false
>
> I was actually attempting to use the term "folk" in a way I thought was common usage when reflecting on how we each USE psychological terms and notions currently to explain ourselves to ourselves. As Hutto and Bruner emphasize this is a critically important topic.
> How we in North America previously understood and reflected on our notions of our selfs [before Freud, Piaget, developmental psychology, etc] was radically different from how we understand our our selfs today.
> These differences over time in our taken for granted prejudgements, and presuppositions, our taken for granted SHARED narratives of who we are is explored as "folk" psychology.
>
> The discussion between Gadamer and Habermas, reflected in Jack Mendelson's article, is asking if we can stand outside our folk psychological narratives through the USING models or SYSTEMS [theories, explanations, and methods] that CONSTRUCT new narrative understandings [purpose built], or if we must translate and interpret our current folk narratives as emerging and expanding con-figurations or com-positions [Gadamer's fusion of horizons].
> Both Gadamer and Habermas value reflection and critique but in their conversations together differ on the centrality of folk knowledge that express our prejudgements or taken for granted assumptions.
>
> I would recommend looking over the introduction of Hutto's book for an in depth study of this topic.
>
> Larry
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 5:31 PM, Cathrene Connery <cconnery@ithaca.edu>wrote:
>
>> That is certainly how I am perceiving Larry's message. So sad to see
>> that false dichotomies still polarize us when so much can and needs to
>> be done on behalf of children and our society.
>>
>> Dr. Cathrene Connery
>> Assistant Professor of Education
>> Ithaca College
>> Department of Education
>> 194B Phillips Hall Annex
>> 953 Danby Road
>> Ithaca, New York 13850
>> Cconnery@ithaca.edu
>>
>> On Jul 18, 2012, at 8:20 PM, "Peter Smagorinsky" <smago@uga.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Larry, it seems you're diminishing practitioner knowledge by
>>> labeling it
>> "folk," which I associate with superstition and lore. Am I misunderstanding?
>>>
>>> Peter Smagorinsky
>>> Distinguished Research Professor of English Education Department of
>>> Language and Literacy Education The University of Georgia
>>> 309 Aderhold Hall
>>> Athens, GA 30602
>>>
>>> Advisor, Journal of Language and Literacy Education Follow JoLLE on
>>> twitter @Jolle_uga
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>> On Behalf Of Larry Purss
>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 6:35 PM
>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Understanding is no method but rather a form of
>> communication
>>>
>>> Martin, Peter
>>>
>>> The question of "folk" understanding and how it links up with the
>> understanding of researchers has profound consequences.
>>> For example the multiple theories &models and systems of "psychology"
>> that have been proposed and configured over the past century
>> dramatically impacts the place where I currently work [public schools]
>>>
>>> Therefore the models we develop change our history.
>>> Also, on a personal level, engaging with Gadamer, and other
>>> scholars,
>> changes what I *see* and how I interact when I go to to work. The "folk"
>> notions of psychology, education and development, when translated and
>> actualized within academic institutions do change our conduct.
>>> Therefore the question,
>>> How do the MULTIPLE competing notions of psychology and education
>> develop and change institutional practices?
>>> This question must engage both "folk" psychology AND philosophical
>> psychology.
>>>
>>> Scholars such as Gadamer and Habermas are engaging in a serious
>> conversation about the place of theory and practice and techne as
>> contrasting notions influencing "folk" psychology as a form of
>> understanding that is taken for granted.
>>>
>>> Eugene Taylor [who has written a history of dynamic psychology] has
>> suggested 3 contrasting notions of psychology that are currently in use.
>>> 1] Academic psychology which is biased towards experiment,
>>> measurement,
>> and empirical statistical notions 2] Clinical practices of
>> psychotherapy, which have little overlap to academic psychology.
>>> 3] Psychology which informs self-exploration as a person tries to
>> develop self-understanding. This 3rd way of understanding psychology
>> is a question of developing dis-positions, attitudes, or ways of
>> orienting within the world.
>>>
>>> William James, over a hundred years ago, discussed these multiple
>> contrasting notions of psychology and 100 years later we continue to
>> generate NEW and novel systems of psychology.
>>> It is THIS hermeneutical process of interpretation and translation
>>> [the
>> multiple theories ans systems of psychology as understanding] which I
>> believe scholars such as Gadamer can illuminate through reflection on
>> how our folk psychology, is constantly under RE-vision. RE-search is
>> one method contributing to the MULTIPLE versions of psychology
>> generated and it is THIS hermeneutical understanding of how systems of
>> psychology develop which may shed some light on the practice of
>> psychology [and psyche] as a historically implicated development.
>> Gadamer would say hermeneutical understanding underlies all the
>> multiple ways of understanding psychology as theoretical systems of psychology.
>>>
>>> Peter, I'm not sure if "folk" psychology or "folk" education [as
>>> taken
>> for granted understanding] can answer questions of WHY is there a
>> multiplicity of competing systems of psychology?
>>> Gadamer gives a particular answer to this question. I also believe
>>> he
>> offers a model of reflective practice which can deepen the
>> understanding of critical theory and deepen an understanding of "folk" psychology.
>>>
>>> Larry
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jul 18, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Peter Smagorinsky <smago@uga.edu>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Bueno, and my apologies if I misunderstood the intent of your comments.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>>>> On Behalf Of Martin Packer
>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 4:37 PM
>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Understanding is no method but rather a form of
>>>> communication
>>>>
>>>> Peter,
>>>>
>>>> I was responding to a post about Gadamer, and I replied not by
>>>> giving my own opinion but by describing what someone a lot smarter
>>>> than me has said to Gadamer. I'm not trying to say that highly
>>>> placed theorists are more important than everyday folk; I have
>>>> simply pointed out that some pretty smart people have thought about
>>>> these issues, that I find what they have to say helpful, and I've
>>>> tried to summarize
>> what they have said.
>>>>
>>>> Martin
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Jul 18, 2012, at 3:22 PM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Action research, at least from a teacher-research perspective, is
>>>> something I've always understood to emerge from participants'
>>>> inquiries into their own practice. When teachers write about their
>>>> classroom inquiries, they tend to begin with the story of the
>>>> question, not what Hegel or Habermas thinks. Yet in this discussion
>>>> of action research, the only people given credit for thinking are
>>>> what
>> you've called "researchers"
>>>> who can stand back and take in the whole, rather than those with an
>>>> emic perspective on their own experiences.
>>>>>
>>>>> Or, at least, that's how it's come across to me. I know a lot of
>>>> teacher-researchers, and have worked from that perspective myself,
>>>> so I've been pretty well submerged in their discourse of emic
>>>> understanding and distance from other people's detached study of them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Peter Smagorinsky
>>>>> Distinguished Research Professor of English Education Department
>>>>> of Language and Literacy Education The University of Georgia
>>>>> 309 Aderhold Hall
>>>>> Athens, GA 30602
>>>>>
>>>>> Advisor, Journal of Language and Literacy Education Follow JoLLE
>>>>> on twitter @Jolle_uga
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>> From: xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>> [mailto:xmca-bounces@weber.ucsd.edu]
>>>>> On Behalf Of Martin Packer
>>>>> Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 3:53 PM
>>>>> To: eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity
>>>>> Subject: Re: [xmca] Understanding is no method but rather a form
>>>>> of communication
>>>>>
>>>>> Could you spell this out a bit Peter? I'm not grasping your point.
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin
>>>>>
>>>>> On Jul 18, 2012, at 2:37 PM, Peter Smagorinsky wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> What I find surprising about this whole discussion is that each
>>>>>> and
>>>> every source invoked is a highly placed theorist. It seems a bit
>>>> patronizing to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> __________________________________________
>>>>> _____
>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> __________________________________________
>>>>> _____
>>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________
>>>> _____
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> __________________________________________
>>>> _____
>>>> xmca mailing list
>>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>>
>>> __________________________________________
>>> _____
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>>>
>>> __________________________________________
>>> _____
>>> xmca mailing list
>>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>>
>>
>> __________________________________________
>> _____
>> xmca mailing list
>> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
>> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
>
>
> __________________________________________
> _____
> xmca mailing list
> xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
> http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca
__________________________________________
_____
xmca mailing list
xmca@weber.ucsd.edu
http://dss.ucsd.edu/mailman/listinfo/xmca